commix_scan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it requires explicit authorization, the target must be in tengu.toml allowed_hosts, and it returns test results with evidence. It could go further by explicitly stating that it sends crafted payloads to the target, but the purpose makes this clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with headers, front-loads the purpose and a critical warning, and uses concise bullet-like sections. Every sentence adds value, and the moderate length is appropriate for a tool with five parameters and safety requirements.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, return value, and prerequisites, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The presence of an output schema means the return value description is a bonus, not a necessity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter (url, method, data, level, timeout) with defaults, examples, and the critical naming constraint. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Test a URL for OS command injection vulnerabilities using Commix,' clearly defining the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools like sqlmap_scan (SQL injection) and xss_scan (XSS) by naming the vulnerability class.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (for OS command injection testing) and provides important operational prerequisites like explicit authorization and allowed_hosts. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose strongly implies the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.